ARMENIA THE BATTLE-GROUND OF ASIA MINOR AND VICTIM OF CONTENDING
EMPIRES
No country and people have suffered so severely from the clash of rival
empires, both in war and diplomacy, as have Armenia and the Armenians,
so far as is known to the recorded history of the world. Her
geographical position has made Armenia the cockpit of ambitious empires
and conquerors, and the highway of their armies in Western Asia, much as
Belgium and Poland have been the battle-grounds of Europe. But whereas
in these European battle-grounds the invading armies have generally
moved east and west only, Armenia has endured the horrors of invasion,
time after time, from north, south, east and west. Then, again, Armenia
being a much older country, the record of her suffering from the
invading armies of her stronger neighbours, "hacking their way" through
her territory, extends over a proportionately longer period than that of
Belgium and Poland. Armenia has been invaded and ravaged in turn by
Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Hittites, Parthians, Macedonians,
Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Tartars and Turks. Only during the
first century B.C. did she succeed in subduing all her neighbours, and
establishing a short-lived empire of her own, extending from the
Mediterranean to the Caspian.
The analogy between Armenia and her European co-sufferers from the ills
of aggressive Imperialism ceases altogether, however, when we come to
the period of Turkish domination. The blood-stained history of that
régime is well enough known. Periodic explosions have reminded Europe of
the existence of the inferno of unbridled lust, corruption and predatory
barbarism which this unhappy people have been fated to endure for
centuries. What has not been brought into sufficient relief is the fact
that this "bloody tyranny" could have long since been brought to an end,
or, at all events, effectively curbed, if it had not been for the
jealousies and rivalries of the great modern Christian empires. The
history of the acts of European diplomacy in regard to Armenia and the
Near East during the last sixty or seventy years is not one of which the
diplomats and statesmen concerned can be particularly proud. Who can
claim for them to-day to have served, in the sum total of their results,
either the interests of the Christian subjects of the Porte, the
progress of civilization, the material interests of the Great Powers
themselves, or the supreme interests of peace?
Mr. Balfour says in his famous Dispatch to the British Ambassador to the
United States that "Turkey has ceased to be a bulwark of peace," thereby
implying, obviously, that Turkey had played that part before. Mr.
Balfour is a great authority on political history, and when he avers
that Turkey has been a "bulwark of peace" she must have filled such a
rôle at some period of her history. But to his Christian subjects, at
any rate, the Turk has never brought peace. He has brought them fire and
sword and a riot of unbridled lust, rapacity, corruption and cruelty
unparalleled even in the Dark Ages. The only peace he has brought them
has been the peace of death and devastation. He has not even left trees
to break the awful silence of desolation which he has spread over this
fair and fertile land once throbbing with human life and activity. That
is the price paid for whatever part Turkey may have played in the past
as a bulwark of international peace. Professor Valran of the University
of Aix-en-Provence estimates the Armenian population of Turkey in the
beginning of the nineteenth century at 5,000,000.[19] The population of
the not too healthy island of Java was the same at the same period.
Under the excellent rule of the Dutch, the population of that island has
grown up to over 35,000,000 during the century. What has become of the
Armenians, one of the most virile and prolific races of the world living
in a healthy country? Let the friends and protectors of the Turk and his
system of government give the answer. In particular let those answer
who, with the Turks' black and bloodstained record of centuries before
them, have, nevertheless, the effrontery to maintain, at this hour of
day, that the Turk has not been given a fair chance. The blood of the
myriads of innocents who have fallen victims to the Turks' incurable
barbarism throughout these centuries, cries aloud against such a brazen
and deliberate travesty of the truth.
One of the principal enactments of the Treaty of Paris was to admit
Turkey into the comity of the Great Powers of Europe. To-day, after a
probation of sixty years, at a fearful cost to her Christian subjects,
it is at last admitted that Turkey has proved herself "decidedly foreign
to Western civilization." Could there be a more crushing condemnation of
the judgment of the statesmen responsible for that treaty in regard to
the Turk? The more one studies the record of the Turk, the more one
marvels at the unbounded confidence placed in his promises of reform by
some of the greatest statesmen of modern times. In vain have I ransacked
the history books in search of an instance where the Turk carried out,
or honestly attempted to carry out, a single one of his numerous
promises of reform. Every one of them was a snare and a pretence
designed merely to oil the wheels of a cunning diplomacy or tide over a
momentary embarrassment. Whether it was the Sultan or Grand Vizier or
Ambassador, whenever the Turk made a promise to improve the lot of his
Christian subjects, he had made up his mind beforehand that that promise
would never be performed.[20]
Since the beginning of last century Russia has been, by reason of her
geographical contiguity, practically the only Power which the Turk has
really feared. In contrast with the near Eastern policies of the Western
Powers, Russian policy has been almost invariably hostile to the Turk
since the days of Peter the Great. Of course, this was not always pure
altruism on the part of the rulers of Russia. But, whatever the motive,
Russian policy certainly coincided absolutely with the interests of
humanity and civilization. And while in the West the policy of
"buttressing the Turk" (in the words of the Bishop of Oxford) often met
with strong opposition among the democracies of England and France,
Russian policy in regard to the Turk has always enjoyed the unanimous
support of the Russian people, who being the Turk's neighbour and having
had several wars with him, knew his true nature from prolonged personal
contact. The one departure from Russia's traditional policy was Count
Lobanoff's regrettable--and I may say inexplicable--refusal to take
joint action with Britain and France to put a term upon the butcheries
of 1895-96, and adopt such effective measures as would perhaps have put
it beyond the power of the Turk to indulge again in his diabolical
orgies of cold-blooded barbarism.
His fear of Russia, which acted as a wholesome restraint upon the
predatory tendencies of the Turk, was weakened by the Treaty of Paris
taking away from Russia her effective protectorate over the Christian
subjects of the Porte, and was removed altogether by the Treaty of
Berlin and the Cyprus Convention. The Turk was quick to understand that
the Western Powers would not permit Russia to intervene on behalf of his
persecuted Christian subjects. He saw that conditions were favourable
for putting into execution his "policy" of getting rid of his Christian
subjects, and he forthwith set to work to carry out his foul project.
Events have proved the Treaty of Berlin to have been the masterpiece of
Bismarck's policy of "divide et impera." It created, as it was designed
to create, a deep and bitter feeling of mistrust and antagonism between
Great Britain and Russia, which gave Germany her chance of gaining a
strong foothold in the Ottoman Empire.
The appearance of Germany upon the scene created new dangers, which
have proved all but fatal to the Armenian people.
The Emperor William II, on his return from his pilgrimage to the Holy
Land, paid a visit to, and fraternized with, the murderer of 250,000
Armenians who had died for the sake of the very Christ from the scene of
whose life the Christian emperor had just returned. This, by the way,
was in characteristic contrast with King Edward's refusal of the
Sultan's offer of his portrait about the same time. This act of the
great and humane English king has touched the hearts of Armenians, who
cherish a deep and reverent affection for his memory.
The result of the Emperor William's visit to Abdul Hamid was the Baghdad
Railway and many other concessions, and no doubt a great scheme of a
future Germano-Turkish Empire in the East.
I believe it was Dr. Paul Rohrbach, the well-known German writer on Near
Eastern affairs, who suggested some years ago that the deportation of
the Armenians from their homes and their settlement in agricultural
colonies along the Baghdad Railway would be the best way to make that
line pay quick and handsome dividends.
Some time ago I read in _The Near East_ the account of a conversation
between an American missionary and a German officer travelling together
in Anatolia. The German officer confessed that what he had seen was
horrible, more horrible than anything he had ever seen before; "but," he
added, "what could we do? _The Armenians were in the way of our military
aims._" Supposing that resistance to massacre by Armenian men was
interpreted by the German agents in Turkey as being "in the way of their
military aims," what possible excuse could there be for the abominable
treatment, the torture, the slaughter, and the driving to misery and
death of hundreds of thousands of women and children? Were they also in
the way of their military aims?
While the Turks were butchering Christians in their hundreds of
thousands, the German Emperor was presenting a sword of honour to the
Sultan of Turkey and showering honours upon Enver Pasha at his
headquarters. While thousands of Christian children and women were
being mercilessly slaughtered and driven to death by Germany's ally, and
their bodies thrown to the wolves and vultures in the Mesopotamian
deserts, the German Government was making provision for the housing and
tuition of thousands of Turkish youths in the technical schools of
Germany to fill the places of the "eliminated" Armenians. What have
Christian Germans to say to all this? Do the Johanniter Knights, of whom
the Kaiser is himself Grand Master, approve of these proceedings? Do
they think that He who said "inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of
these little ones, ye have done it unto Me" knows of any distinction of
race? How can German Christians, from their rulers downwards, face God
and the Son of God in the intimacy of their prayers after sanctioning
these black deeds which are the very negation of God and the teaching of
Christ? Do the rulers of Germany and Turkey and the protagonists of the
Reventlow doctrine believe that empires, railways, or any other schemes
of expansion, built upon foundations of the blood and tears of hundreds
of thousands of human beings, will endure and prosper and bring forth
harvests of plenty and peace and happiness to their promoters, their
children, and their children's children? They are mistaken. My word may
count for naught to the rulers and leaders of mighty states; but it is
true. We are an ancient people. "We have seen empires come and empires
go." We have been ground for centuries in the mill of the ruthless clash
of contending empires; but in spite of our long and bitter sufferings
our belief to-day is as strong as ever in the existence of another mill,
the mill of Divine Justice, which grinds in its own good time, and may
grind slow, but "it grinds exceeding small." Who will doubt or deny that
violence to women and children and unoffending, defenceless men, "every
hair of whose head is numbered," will not be forgiven by their just and
Almighty Creator; that the sacrifice of them for ulterior selfish
objects will not be overlooked? Political and military acts of the
mightiest empires, entailing injustice, violence and suffering to weaker
peoples will bring Nemesis in their train in due course. The idol with
feet of clay, sunk in the blood of innocents, cannot endure. Sooner or
later it must fall.